SARYOUG CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The present writ petition has been preferred against an order of recovery, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh, dated 23rd Oct., 2009, which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of the present petition whereby, sizeable amount was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, for the reason that promotion, which was given in the year 1990 as well as in the year, 2004 was wrongly given and thereafter, after retirement of the petitioner, the aforesaid order of recovery has been passed and that too without following any principles of natural justice.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk in 1980. Thereafter, the petitioner worked honestly, diligently, sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents and, therefore, first time bound promotion was given to the petitioner with effect from 21st April, 1990. Thereafter also, the petitioner worked for several years to the satisfaction of the respondents and ultimately, the petitioner was again given second time bound promotion in the form of Assured Career Progression with effect from 21st April, 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on 31st July, 2009. Never any notice was given to the petitioner that the promotions or the benefit of Assured Career Progression, which was given to the petitioner, was incorrect and illegal. On the contrary, first time bound promotion as well as second time bound promotion was rightly given to the petitioner and it was absolutely, in accordance with law and the facts. It is further vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after retirement of the petitioner straightway an order of recovery has been passed on 23rd Oct., 2009 at Annexure-5 to the memo of the petition. This order deserves to be quashed and set aside mainly for the reason that never any notice was given to the petitioner for the aforesaid order of recovery. Never any opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner. Moreover, after retirement of the petitioner, this amount cannot be recovered because the said amount of promotion No. 1 and promotion No. 2, were never given to the petitioner because of misrepresentation or because of a fraud played by the petitioner. These promotions were given to the petitioner firstly in the year, 1990 and secondly, in the year, 2004 because of long services rendered by the petitioner from 1980 onwards as well as looking to the efficiency of the present petitioner on the concerned post. Never any memo has been issued for any disciplinary action to the petitioner, during tenure of his services.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is also relying upon the following decisions reported in :